Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy of Silence


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep Stifle 14:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy of Silence
Nonnotable fringe "documentary". Haikupoet 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 00:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - appears to have notable content, but the documentary itself does not seem to be notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Keep as rewritten. This article is one of several (two of the others being Lawrence King and Paul A. Bonacci) that figure in a complex and bizarre conspiracy theory involving alleged satanic ritual abuse among prominent Nebraskans in the early 1990s. It is very hard to tell fact from invention in any of these. A while ago I cleaned up the King and Bonacci articles, trying to pare them down to what is verifiable. I had Conspiracy of Silence on my list as well, since it is still full of unsourced speculation, obvious POV, etc., but have not had a chance to clean it up. Despite the terrible state of the article, I do believe that the subject is notable, in that the documentary was produced by a major TV production company (Yorkshire Television), and was scheduled to air on a major US cable channel (Discovery Channel), regarding an alleged conspiracy that received significant media attention at the time. I'll take a look at it and see if I can get it to at least minimally acceptable standards for now. MCB 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: OK, I rewrote it down to a plausible minimum. Take a look. MCB 05:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep This is very weak keep for me inasmuch as I find the arguments on either side to be equally compelling and believe, consistent with policy, that one ought always to err on the side of keeping an article. Though MCB's very fine efforts surely improved the article and though he makes a good case above for notability, I think that, while the underlying story may well be notable, a documentary about that story likely would not be.  In this case, though, the documentary appears inextricably interwoven with the story, as one genesis for the significant media attention received described by MCB.  I imagine the best disposition of all of this would be an article written about the underlying story, with which article could be merged this article and The Franklin Coverup (as well, perhaps, as Paul A. Bonacci.  In the meanwhile, I suppose it's appropriate that we keep the article.  Joe 05:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep This was a notable programme, especially since it was banned in the USA. Can anyone give any reasons why it should be deleted? (Other than opinions that the article is badly written)? Rapido 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable program, and the conspiracy theory is also notable. —This unsigned comment was added by Pugs Malone (talk • contribs) . 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep This is very important. The fact that a documentary can be cancled like this by special interest groups because it reveals some very serious abuses should outrage all Americans (supposedly, this involved some very big figures, like a local reporter, and I is possible that one of the investigators and his son was murdered in their private jet!). Again, keep, this is important, I mean IMPORTANT stuff.... IdeArchos 02:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.